E-learning and Development: Lessons from Multi-Disciplinary Capacity Strengthening
Download 224.32 Kb. View original pdf
|
- Navigate this page:
- Cooperation among the Students
| The Student-Faculty Contact Much of the student-faculty contact was developed through the tutoring sessions. The role of the tutor-faculty is much more than either an uninvolved administrator of the course or just that of a professor imparting knowledge to a group of students rather, in web-based, open and distance learning, tutors are facilitators of learning (Denis et al., 2004). This is further emphasized by Howell et al.’s (2003) description of tutors as serving the roles of: facilitator, teacher, organizer, assessor, mentor, role model, counselor, coach, supervisor, problem solver and liaison. O’Rourke (2003) suggests that there are four main categories of tutoring skills (i) guiding the learning process (ii) enabling the learning (iii) supportive; and, (iv) administrative. With the RENEWAL proposal writing course, one tutor-facilitator performed all four of the tasks outlined above in order to fully support the learners. These tasks took a greater amount of time when corresponding on a regular basis than had been budgeted or foreseen by the course developers, particularly with regards to the supportive tasks, since few of the learners had previous experience with online courses. The most challenging role was that of facilitating and encouraging learner-to-learner exchanges as will be seen in the following section. Cooperation among the Students As in traditional courses, the value of learner-to-learner exchanges and class dialogues cannot be underestimated. Spontaneous and cultivated discussions among students and collaborative activities often aid in the translation of theoretical lessons into concrete concepts that learners can apply in practice. The benefits of these interactions are necessary regardless of whether the classroom is a physical or virtual one however, in an online learning environment, strategies need to be developed during the planning stages and learner-to-learner exchanges need to be carefully cultivated in order to bear fruit. O’Rourke (2003) suggests three possible strategies in designing a collaborative group learning situation plan a complete program of group activities for the entire course duration; prepare a few activities at first and then enable learners to direct their own group work or provide learners with guidelines for planning their own group activities and let them carryout their own plans. In two of the three strategies, the tutor-facilitator plays a direct role in shaping the interactions between learners however, even then, it is the learners themselves, Thorpe) suggests, that ultimately shape the substance and meaning of the collaborations. This would indicate that the most supportive role that a tutor-facilitator might play is that of a motivator. Understanding the motivation of the participants in taking the course was helpful in guiding them on how the course contents might help in achieving their career goals. If the appropriate triggers are found to motivate learners to participate in group activities, it would follow that meaningful exchanges between learners would ensue. Just as in traditional face-to-face classroom settings, the various types of group learning activities include small-group discussions, debates, demonstration and practice, situational analysis, case studies, learner presentations, and role-plays. During the first course on proposal writing, the second strategy listed above was applied to the course. The tutor-facilitator encouraged participants to initiate group interactions via the discussion forum online learning tool, beginning with introductions and providing the learners with information regarding what types of proposals they were working on within the particular RENEWAL subject area. The group discussions were not required as part of the assessment of the course participation and while, it was encouraged, the tutor-facilitator did not play an ongoing active role to stimulate dialogue rather, it was hoped that the dialogue would be spontaneous following the first few planned activities. It was found, however, that this did not provide sufficient motivation. Just over a third of the learners participated in the initial discussion forums with the very few of the discussions resulting in any interchange of ideas rather, the discussion forum became static with individual postings that were not connected and learners did not tend to respond to each other’s entries. The second online course on writing and presenting scientific research adopted a different approach and made participating in discussion forums a mandatory component of the course as suggested by Tobin (2004). Additionally, the first of O’Rourke’s (2003) strategies was applied with discussion forums being planned for each week’s set of lessons. The discussion forums had specific topics and specific questions were asked of the learners. This approach had dramatically different results with over three-fourths of the learners participating in the discussion forums. However, it should be noted that while participation in the forums did take place with this first strategy there were no spontaneous discussions exchanges between learners took place as required and on the subject matter specifically suggested by the tutor-facilitator. One of the similarities between the learner-to-learner exchange strategies between the two courses was that in both the tutor-facilitator did not take an active and ongoing role. Several of the studies examined during the literature review for this paper (Tobin, 2004, O’Rourke, 2003, and Thorpe, 2002) suggested that consistent active correspondence and encouragement on the part of the tutor might be a key to motivating learners to participate. Download 224.32 Kb. Share with your friends:
|